好吧，以下是我的看法:

完全懒惰:工作在无限枚举上 没有中间复制/缓冲 O(n)执行时间 当内部序列仅被部分消耗时也适用

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, int chunkSize) { if (chunkSize < 1) throw new ArgumentException("chunkSize must be positive"); using (var e = enumerable.GetEnumerator()) while (e.MoveNext()) { var remaining = chunkSize; // elements remaining in the current chunk var innerMoveNext = new Func<bool>(() => --remaining > 0 && e.MoveNext()); yield return e.GetChunk(innerMoveNext); while (innerMoveNext()) {/* discard elements skipped by inner iterator */} } } private static IEnumerable<T> GetChunk<T>(this IEnumerator<T> e, Func<bool> innerMoveNext) { do yield return e.Current; while (innerMoveNext()); } Example Usage var src = new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}; var c3 = src.Chunks(3); // {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}}; var c4 = src.Chunks(4); // {{1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6}}; var sum = c3.Select(c => c.Sum()); // {6, 15} var count = c3.Count(); // 2 var take2 = c3.Select(c => c.Take(2)); // {{1, 2}, {4, 5}} Explanations The code works by nesting two yield based iterators. The outer iterator must keep track of how many elements have been effectively consumed by the inner (chunk) iterator. This is done by closing over remaining with innerMoveNext(). Unconsumed elements of a chunk are discarded before the next chunk is yielded by the outer iterator. This is necessary because otherwise you get inconsistent results, when the inner enumerables are not (completely) consumed (e.g. c3.Count() would return 6). Note: The answer has been updated to address the shortcomings pointed out by @aolszowka.

我认为下面的建议是最快的。为了能够使用数组，我牺牲了源Enumerable的惰性。复制和提前知道每个子列表的长度。

public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int size)
{
    T[] array = items as T[] ?? items.ToArray();
    for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i+=size)
    {
        T[] chunk = new T[Math.Min(size, array.Length - i)];
        Array.Copy(array, i, chunk, 0, chunk.Length);
        yield return chunk;
    }
}

看看这个!我有一个序列计数器和日期的元素列表。每次序列重新启动时，我都想创建一个新列表。

例:消息列表。

 List<dynamic> messages = new List<dynamic>
        {
            new { FcntUp = 101, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:01" },
            new { FcntUp = 102, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:02" },
            new { FcntUp = 103, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:03" },

            //restart of sequence
            new { FcntUp = 1, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:04" },
            new { FcntUp = 2, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:05" },
            new { FcntUp = 3, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:06" },

            //restart of sequence
            new { FcntUp = 1, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:07" },
            new { FcntUp = 2, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:08" },
            new { FcntUp = 3, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:09" }
        };

我想在计数器重新启动时将列表拆分为单独的列表。代码如下:

var arraylist = new List<List<dynamic>>();

        List<dynamic> messages = new List<dynamic>
        {
            new { FcntUp = 101, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:01" },
            new { FcntUp = 102, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:02" },
            new { FcntUp = 103, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:03" },

            //restart of sequence
            new { FcntUp = 1, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:04" },
            new { FcntUp = 2, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:05" },
            new { FcntUp = 3, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:06" },

            //restart of sequence
            new { FcntUp = 1, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:07" },
            new { FcntUp = 2, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:08" },
            new { FcntUp = 3, CommTimestamp = "2019-01-01 00:00:09" }
        };

        //group by FcntUp and CommTimestamp
        var query = messages.GroupBy(x => new { x.FcntUp, x.CommTimestamp });

        //declare the current item
        dynamic currentItem = null;

        //declare the list of ranges
        List<dynamic> range = null;

        //loop through the sorted list
        foreach (var item in query)
        {
            //check if start of new range
            if (currentItem == null || item.Key.FcntUp < currentItem.Key.FcntUp)
            {
                //create a new list if the FcntUp starts on a new range
                range = new List<dynamic>();

                //add the list to the parent list
                arraylist.Add(range);
            }

            //add the item to the sublist
            range.Add(item);

            //set the current item
            currentItem = item;
        }

完全懒惰的，没有计数或复制的:

public static class EnumerableExtensions
{

  public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Split<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int len)
  {
     if (len == 0)
        throw new ArgumentNullException();

     var enumer = source.GetEnumerator();
     while (enumer.MoveNext())
     {
        yield return Take(enumer.Current, enumer, len);
     }
  }

  private static IEnumerable<T> Take<T>(T head, IEnumerator<T> tail, int len)
  {
     while (true)
     {
        yield return head;
        if (--len == 0)
           break;
        if (tail.MoveNext())
           head = tail.Current;
        else
           break;
     }
  }
}

没有办法在一个解决方案中结合所有理想的特性，如完全懒惰、无复制、完全通用性和安全性。最根本的原因是不能保证在访问块之前输入不发生变化。 假设我们有一个如下签名的函数:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int chunkSize)
{
    // Some implementation
}

那么下面的使用方式就有问题了:

var myList = new List<int>()
{
    1,2,3,4
};
var myChunks = myList.Chunk(2);
myList.RemoveAt(0);
var firstChunk = myChunks.First();    
Console.WriteLine("First chunk:" + String.Join(',', firstChunk));
myList.RemoveAt(0);
var secondChunk = myChunks.Skip(1).First();
Console.WriteLine("Second chunk:" + String.Join(',', secondChunk));
// What outputs do we see for first and second chunk? Probably not what you would expect...

根据具体的实现，代码将失败并产生运行时错误或产生不直观的结果。

所以，至少有一个属性需要减弱。如果你想要一个无懈无击的惰性解决方案，你需要将输入类型限制为不可变类型，即使这样也不能直接覆盖所有用例。但是，如果您可以控制使用，您仍然可以选择最通用的解决方案，只要您确保以一种有效的方式使用它。否则，你可能会放弃懒惰，接受一定数量的复制。

最后，这完全取决于您的用例和需求，哪种解决方案最适合您。

一般来说，CaseyB建议的方法很好，事实上，如果你传入一个List<T>，很难对它进行错误处理，也许我会将其更改为:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> ChunkTrivialBetter<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int chunksize)
{
   var pos = 0; 
   while (source.Skip(pos).Any())
   {
      yield return source.Skip(pos).Take(chunksize);
      pos += chunksize;
   }
}

这将避免大量的呼叫链。然而，这种方法有一个普遍的缺陷。它实现了每个块的两个枚举，以突出问题，尝试运行:

foreach (var item in Enumerable.Range(1, int.MaxValue).Chunk(8).Skip(100000).First())
{
   Console.WriteLine(item);
}
// wait forever 

为了克服这个问题，我们可以尝试Cameron的方法，该方法出色地通过了上述测试，因为它只遍历了一次枚举。

问题是，它有一个不同的缺陷，它将每个块中的每个项具体化，这种方法的问题是，你会占用大量内存。

为了说明尝试运行:

foreach (var item in Enumerable.Range(1, int.MaxValue)
               .Select(x => x + new string('x', 100000))
               .Clump(10000).Skip(100).First())
{
   Console.Write('.');
}
// OutOfMemoryException

最后，任何实现都应该能够处理块的乱序迭代，例如:

Enumerable.Range(1,3).Chunk(2).Reverse().ToArray()
// should return [3],[1,2]

许多高度最优的解决方案，比如我对这个答案的第一次修正，都失败了。在casperOne的优化答案中也可以看到同样的问题。

要解决所有这些问题，您可以使用以下方法:

namespace ChunkedEnumerator
{
    public static class Extensions 
    {
        class ChunkedEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>
        {
            class ChildEnumerator : IEnumerator<T>
            {
                ChunkedEnumerable<T> parent;
                int position;
                bool done = false;
                T current;


                public ChildEnumerator(ChunkedEnumerable<T> parent)
                {
                    this.parent = parent;
                    position = -1;
                    parent.wrapper.AddRef();
                }

                public T Current
                {
                    get
                    {
                        if (position == -1 || done)
                        {
                            throw new InvalidOperationException();
                        }
                        return current;

                    }
                }

                public void Dispose()
                {
                    if (!done)
                    {
                        done = true;
                        parent.wrapper.RemoveRef();
                    }
                }

                object System.Collections.IEnumerator.Current
                {
                    get { return Current; }
                }

                public bool MoveNext()
                {
                    position++;

                    if (position + 1 > parent.chunkSize)
                    {
                        done = true;
                    }

                    if (!done)
                    {
                        done = !parent.wrapper.Get(position + parent.start, out current);
                    }

                    return !done;

                }

                public void Reset()
                {
                    // per http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.ienumerator.reset.aspx
                    throw new NotSupportedException();
                }
            }

            EnumeratorWrapper<T> wrapper;
            int chunkSize;
            int start;

            public ChunkedEnumerable(EnumeratorWrapper<T> wrapper, int chunkSize, int start)
            {
                this.wrapper = wrapper;
                this.chunkSize = chunkSize;
                this.start = start;
            }

            public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
            {
                return new ChildEnumerator(this);
            }

            System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
            {
                return GetEnumerator();
            }

        }

        class EnumeratorWrapper<T>
        {
            public EnumeratorWrapper (IEnumerable<T> source)
            {
                SourceEumerable = source;
            }
            IEnumerable<T> SourceEumerable {get; set;}

            Enumeration currentEnumeration;

            class Enumeration
            {
                public IEnumerator<T> Source { get; set; }
                public int Position { get; set; }
                public bool AtEnd { get; set; }
            }

            public bool Get(int pos, out T item) 
            {

                if (currentEnumeration != null && currentEnumeration.Position > pos)
                {
                    currentEnumeration.Source.Dispose();
                    currentEnumeration = null;
                }

                if (currentEnumeration == null)
                {
                    currentEnumeration = new Enumeration { Position = -1, Source = SourceEumerable.GetEnumerator(), AtEnd = false };
                }

                item = default(T);
                if (currentEnumeration.AtEnd)
                {
                    return false;
                }

                while(currentEnumeration.Position < pos) 
                {
                    currentEnumeration.AtEnd = !currentEnumeration.Source.MoveNext();
                    currentEnumeration.Position++;

                    if (currentEnumeration.AtEnd) 
                    {
                        return false;
                    }

                }

                item = currentEnumeration.Source.Current;

                return true;
            }

            int refs = 0;

            // needed for dispose semantics 
            public void AddRef()
            {
                refs++;
            }

            public void RemoveRef()
            {
                refs--;
                if (refs == 0 && currentEnumeration != null)
                {
                    var copy = currentEnumeration;
                    currentEnumeration = null;
                    copy.Source.Dispose();
                }
            }
        }

        public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int chunksize)
        {
            if (chunksize < 1) throw new InvalidOperationException();

            var wrapper =  new EnumeratorWrapper<T>(source);

            int currentPos = 0;
            T ignore;
            try
            {
                wrapper.AddRef();
                while (wrapper.Get(currentPos, out ignore))
                {
                    yield return new ChunkedEnumerable<T>(wrapper, chunksize, currentPos);
                    currentPos += chunksize;
                }
            }
            finally
            {
                wrapper.RemoveRef();
            }
        }
    }

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            int i = 10;
            foreach (var group in Enumerable.Range(1, int.MaxValue).Skip(10000000).Chunk(3))
            {
                foreach (var n in group)
                {
                    Console.Write(n);
                    Console.Write(" ");
                }
                Console.WriteLine();
                if (i-- == 0) break;
            }


            var stuffs = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Chunk(2).ToArray();

            foreach (var idx in new [] {3,2,1})
            {
                Console.Write("idx " + idx + " ");
                foreach (var n in stuffs[idx])
                {
                    Console.Write(n);
                    Console.Write(" ");
                }
                Console.WriteLine();
            }

            /*

10000001 10000002 10000003
10000004 10000005 10000006
10000007 10000008 10000009
10000010 10000011 10000012
10000013 10000014 10000015
10000016 10000017 10000018
10000019 10000020 10000021
10000022 10000023 10000024
10000025 10000026 10000027
10000028 10000029 10000030
10000031 10000032 10000033
idx 3 7 8
idx 2 5 6
idx 1 3 4
             */

            Console.ReadKey();


        }

    }
}

对于块的无序迭代，您还可以引入一轮优化，这超出了本文的范围。

至于你应该选择哪种方法呢?这完全取决于你要解决的问题。如果你不关心第一个缺陷，那么简单的答案是非常有吸引力的。

注意与大多数方法一样，这对于多线程来说是不安全的，如果你想让它线程安全，你需要修改EnumeratorWrapper。